in Re Steve A. Coston, 06-17-00132-CR

Relator Steve Alan Coston, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition in the 102nd Judicial District Court (Red River County) seeking reformation of his sentence; he had been sentenced to 25 years after pleading guilty to DWI (third or more) with two enhancements found true.
Coston alleges the trial court failed to rule on his petition after it was presented to the court on May 1 and again on May 15, 2017.
He seeks a writ of mandamus from the Sixth Court of Appeals directing the trial court to rule.
Mandamus requires showing no adequate remedy at law and that the requested act is ministerial (i.e., a clear right to relief).
The court examines whether the delay (eight to ten weeks) in ruling is an unreasonable failure to act, considering precedents on what constitutes a reasonable time to rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Coston is entitled to mandamus compelling the trial court to rule on his petition	The petition was properly filed and presented; the trial court has failed to rule within a reasonable time (presented May 1 and May 15)	The delay (8–10 weeks) is not shown to be unreasonable and does not amount to a ministerial refusal	Denied: eight-to-ten-week delay not unreasonable; relator failed to show entitlement to mandamus
Whether the relator established the ministerial-act prerequisite for mandamus	Coston contends consideration and ruling on his motion is ministerial once filed and brought before the court	Court requires a clear right to relief; absence of unreasonable delay means no clear abuse to compel	Denied: relator did not show a clear right because reasonable time had not passed

In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App.) (mandamus standards: adequate remedy and ministerial act)
State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207 (Tex. Crim. App.) (ministerial-act prerequisite satisfied by clear right)
In re Greenwell, 160 S.W.3d 286 (Tex. App.—Texarkana) (trial court must consider and rule on properly filed motions within a reasonable time)
State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125 (Tex. Crim. App.) (consideration of a properly filed request is ministerial)
Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (requirements for obtaining mandamus to compel ruling)
Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. App.—Amarillo) (no bright-line rule for reasonable time; seven weeks may be reasonable)
In re Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d 682 (Tex. App.—San Antonio) (eighteen-month delay supports mandamus)
In re Cash, 99 S.W.3d 286 (Tex. App.—Texarkana) (five-month delay supports mandamus)
In re Kleven, 100 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. App.—Texarkana) (three-month delay supports mandamus)